United States v. Moylan (1969)

On May 17, 1968, Mary Moylan, along with seven other individuals, entered the office of the local draft board in Catonsville, Maryland. They removed approximately 378 draft files and proceeded to burn them in an adjacent parking lot using homemade napalm. This act was a deliberate protest against the Vietnam War, intended to disrupt the Selective Service System and draw attention to their anti-war stance. The participants openly admitted to their actions, framing them as morally justified civil disobedience.

Legal Proceedings

The protesters were indicted and tried in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, facing charges including the mutilation of government records, destruction of government property, and interference with the administration of the Selective Service System. During the trial, the defendants did not dispute the facts but sought to introduce a defense based on the moral imperative of their actions, arguing that their intent was to prevent greater harm by protesting the war. They requested that the jury be instructed on their power to acquit despite the evidence—a concept known as jury nullification.

District Court Ruling

The trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the concept of jury nullification and prohibited defense counsel from arguing this point to the jurors. The defendants were subsequently convicted on all counts. They appealed the conviction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, particularly concerning the definition of criminal intent and the refusal to inform the jury of their nullification power.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision

On October 15, 1969, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its unanimous decision, authored by Judge Simon Sobeloff, affirming the convictions. The court addressed two primary contentions raised by the appellants:

Definition of "Willfully": The appellants argued for a broader interpretation of "willfully," suggesting that their actions, motivated by a desire to protest an immoral war, lacked the bad purpose necessary for criminal liability. The court rejected this argument, stating that the defendants knowingly and purposely committed the acts prohibited by statute, fulfilling the requisite intent for conviction.
Jury Nullification Instruction: The appellants contended that the trial judge should have informed the jury of their power to acquit despite the law and evidence. While the court acknowledged the jury's de facto power to acquit against the evidence and law, it held that neither the court nor counsel are required to inform the jury of this power. The court emphasized that promoting such an instruction could lead to anarchy and undermine the rule of law.

Significance of the Decision

The United States v. Moylan decision is significant for several reasons:

Recognition of Jury Power: The court recognized the jury's inherent power to acquit against the evidence and law, acknowledging the historical role of juries as a check on potential governmental overreach.
Limitation on Jury Instructions: The ruling established that courts are not obligated to inform juries of their nullification power, nor should attorneys encourage jurors to disregard the law. This limitation aims to preserve the integrity and predictability of the legal system.
Impact on Civil Disobedience Cases: The case set a precedent for how courts handle defenses based on moral or political motivations, particularly in instances of civil disobedience, by focusing on the legality of actions rather than the intent behind them.

Implications for Jury Nullification

The Moylan decision underscores the delicate balance between acknowledging the jury's power to nullify and maintaining judicial authority. By refusing to mandate jury instructions on nullification, the court sought to prevent potential misuse of this power, which could lead to inconsistent verdicts and undermine the rule of law. At the same time, the decision preserved the jury's role as a safeguard against unjust laws, allowing for the possibility of nullification without formal endorsement.

United States v. Moylan remains a pivotal case in the discourse on jury nullification within the American legal system. It highlights the judiciary's recognition of the jury's power to acquit against the law and evidence while reinforcing the principle that such power should not be actively promoted or instructed by the courts. This case continues to influence legal perspectives on the role of juries, civil disobedience, and the boundaries of lawful protest.

The Power of the Twelve examines the critical role of juries in the American legal system. It highlights how a group of twelve ordinary citizens can challenge unjust laws and prosecutorial decisions through jury nullification. By empowering individuals to exercise collective judgment, the book emphasizes the jury's importance in ensuring justice, protecting individual rights, and balancing governmental power.

Through its examination of jury dynamics, 'The Power of the Twelve' reveals how jurors wield significant influence in the American legal system by exercising jury nullification and collective judgment. The book emphasizes the crucial role of ordinary citizens in challenging unjust laws, enhancing transparency in legal proceedings, and ensuring that justice is administered fairly. These actions are viewed as essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding individual rights against potential governmental overreach.

Articles

The Verdict Heard ‘Round the World: Jury Nullification in the O.J. Simpson Trial

The 1995 trial of O.J. Simpson, charged with the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, captivated the nation and exposed deep divisions in American society. Despite substantial evidence against Simpson, the jury acquitted him after a trial lasting over eight months. Many viewed the verdict as an act of jury nullification, influenced by broader social issues such as racial tensions, police misconduct, and systemic inequality.

Central to the defense's case was the argument that Simpson was the victim of a corrupt and racist Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). High-profile incidents like the Rodney King beating and the LAPD’s history of racial bias resonated with the predominantly Black jury, overshadowing the prosecution’s evidence. The jury’s decision was seen by some as a statement against racial injustice in the legal system, while others criticized it as a miscarriage of justice.

The Simpson trial highlighted the power of juries to deliver verdicts reflecting societal tensions rather than strict legal interpretations. While controversial, the case underscored the complex interplay between law, public sentiment, and social context. It remains a landmark example of how juries can act as agents of change—or as flash points for public debate—within the justice system.

Cheers to Defiance: Jury Nullification and Prohibition’s Legal Rebellion

During the Prohibition era (1920–1933), the United States attempted to enforce a nationwide ban on alcohol through the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. This legislation aimed to eliminate alcohol consumption and its societal ills but faced widespread resistance. Jurors, reflecting public sentiment, often nullified Prohibition laws by refusing to convict defendants accused of alcohol-related offenses.

Notable cases included those of bootleggers, speakeasy operators, and even ordinary citizens charged with illegal possession. In urban centers like Chicago and New York, jury nullification became a quiet yet powerful form of protest against the perceived overreach of the federal government. Juries openly sympathized with defendants, considering the laws both impractical and unjust.

This widespread jury nullification undermined the enforcement of Prohibition, contributing to its eventual repeal in 1933 through the 21st Amendment. The era serves as a vivid example of how public opinion, reflected in jury decisions, can challenge and ultimately overturn laws that lack societal support. Prohibition’s collapse demonstrated the critical role of jurors in shaping legal and social norms, highlighting jury nullification as a mechanism for resisting unpopular or unjust legislation.

Cannabis and Conscience: Jury Nullification in Marijuana Cases

As societal attitudes toward marijuana shifted in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, jury nullification emerged as a quiet yet powerful form of resistance against outdated cannabis laws. Many individuals faced harsh penalties for possession, cultivation, or distribution, even as public support for legalization grew. In several notable cases, juries refused to convict defendants, reflecting their belief that such laws were unjust.

One such case occurred in the 1990s in California, where a man was charged with cultivating marijuana for medical use. Despite evidence of illegal cultivation, the jury acquitted him, citing compassion for his medical needs. Similar acquittals were reported in states where public opinion clashed with strict anti-cannabis statutes, often influenced by the burgeoning medical marijuana movement.

Jury nullification in marijuana cases highlighted the disconnect between evolving public values and rigid legal frameworks. By refusing to convict, jurors effectively challenged laws that criminalized behaviors increasingly seen as benign or beneficial. These acts of defiance contributed to broader movements for reform, culminating in widespread legalization and decriminalization efforts across the United States. The history of cannabis-related jury nullification underscores the role of ordinary citizens in driving social and legal change through the judicial process.

Breaking the Chains of Injustice: Jury Nullification and the Fugitive Slave Act

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compelled citizens and officials in free states to assist in the capture and return of escaped enslaved individuals. Resistance to the Act grew as abolitionists and sympathizers viewed it as an affront to human dignity and freedom. Northern juries played a critical role in defying this federal mandate through acts of jury nullification, refusing to convict individuals accused of violating the law.

Notable cases include the 1851 trial of William “Jerry” Henry, an escaped enslaved man in Syracuse, New York. When Jerry was arrested under the Act, local abolitionists orchestrated a daring rescue, and despite clear violations of the law, local juries acquitted participants. Similarly, in Boston, Shadrach Minkins, another fugitive, was freed by activists. Northern juries repeatedly delivered verdicts reflecting moral opposition to slavery, not adherence to the law.

These acts of defiance were pivotal in galvanizing the abolitionist movement, undermining the Fugitive Slave Act's enforcement, and intensifying sectional tensions leading to the Civil War. The use of jury nullification during this period demonstrated the power of local communities to resist unjust laws and shaped the broader struggle for justice and human rights in America.